Jake Charles is an associate law professor at the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in Malibu and he teaches students about the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, he’s never once sided with gun rights any time it ever mattered, so I imagine those students are probably not getting anything approaching a fair education on the subject.
In an article he just published at Slate, he laments that the Supreme Court is likely going to confirm that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow banning what is literally the most popular rifle in the country.
I used to respect Charles despite our many disagreements, but that was a mistake. He has increasingly proven what an intellectually dishonest hack he is. He’s never once sided against whatever the Everytown/Giffords party line is. I can’t remember a single time he has offered unqualified praise of a court ruling that upholds gun rights.
The Slate article is just the latest example of his “scholarship.” Let’s take a look . . .
1. The inverse of what he’s saying here is that over two-thirds of Americans live in places where these guns are not banned. Also, several of the bans are very recent, enacted as part of the spasm of post-Bruen resistance. Only a small handful of states like California have decades-old “assault weapons” bans.
2. The gun rights orgs’ have “more money.” LMAO. Michael Bloomberg, Everytown’s financier, is worth more than the combined annual revenue (not profits, revenue) of the entire American gun industry. In our litigation, we’re up against state governments with endless amounts of taxpayer dollars. Money is always an uphill battle for us. It’s why we don’t have ten more lawsuits here in California on the high fees issue alone (another thing that Charles has never found the time to condemn).
In which the good professor reveals that he has no shame at all. If the people of Oklahoma voted to ban Islam or make being gay illegal, would charles argue it’s wrong to overturn Oklahoma voters?
His arguments, as always, reveal that his real beef here is that the Second Amendment exists. And if the Second Amendment is to mean anything, it must mean that you can’t ban literally the most common rifle in the country.
Voters have a voice, of course. They can amend the constitution. But Charles knows they don’t have nearly enough support to do that, because his preferences are only popular in a minority of the country.
This is true of literally every law that gets struck down on constitutional grounds. This argument makes no sense unless Charles is going to come out in opposition to Marbury v. Madison.
The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. That means the people get to pick which weapons they deem worthy of that protection. A minority of states have attacked that right, just like a minority of states tried to enforce segregation. Both are equally unconstitutional.
The esteemed perfesser says that it’s appropriate for the Supreme Court to act as a check on majority rule…in some areas. But what are the criteria for the Court doing that?
Strangely, he doesn’t explain why other civil rights should be treated favorably in that way, but the Second Amendment should be dealt with as a second-class right, not subject to the same degree of protection against the whims of majority rule.
It seems that his standard here is just, “I don’t like the Second Amendment.” And if that’s so, he should just say it and stop the whole “scholar” charade. Take a paycheck from Everytown and quit brainwashing your law students.
This argument is especially infuriating because Charles knows better than anyone that all of the courts to rule in “assault weapons” ban cases up until that point were notoriously anti-gun courts. No conservative circuit had the chance until recently.
He knows damn well the Fifth and Eighth circuits, at minimum, and probably at least two others, would strike down such bans if a case came before them. Also, he omits that the Third Circuit result was a lopsided 10-5 decision to strike New Jersey’s bans, with two Biden-appointed judges in the majority…and one of them writing the opinion. Yet somehow Charles finds time to note that a token conservative on the 4th Circuit voted to uphold a ban.
Hack.
If Professor Charles happens to see this, I challenge him to look at the more than 50 active cases the Second Amendment Foundation has right now and name five that he supports. There is some really low-hanging fruit there, like the challenge to $2000 carry permit fees, or California’s handgun roster.
If he can’t bring himself to do even that much, it speaks for itself.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.
It is quite obvious that he is a tool of the leftist, dsa, commies. He poisons the minds of the young with their agenda. Debate is not in the cards that is why they want to limit our 1st Amendment rights also